View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:32 am



Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
 Hi Harlan 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 11:42 pm
Posts: 4
Location: USA
I am a new paying member here. But I am not new to the whole radiation thing by far.

I have been reading some of the posts, explaining how NETC works, how it gathers and formulates its findings. While some of us know that there are different ranges of radiation, the different types, some and in fact most people do not understand these things. Recently this sites name has been brought to my attention due to high readings and while I am still not sure the source of this reading, it would be negligent of me to assume the worst. That's because I know the devil is in the details. But most people do not and are kind of hysterical.

Now please do not misunderstand me. I am more than well aware how dangerous and out of control Fukushima is and in general, radiation, nukes, nuclear weapon proliferation, black market movement of Uranium, the lies/cover ups etc, its a mess beyond comprehension.

But, I think as a website that is one of 3-4 that has taken on the responsibility to provide citizens with access to radiation readings, there needs be more of an understanding taught of the basics of radiation, ranges, background rad, "normal" ranges differ from location to location, to name a few so people aren't running around like chicken with their heads cut off over the slightest thing. Also because of the misunderstandings about how the numbers are reached here, people are saying this website is inaccurate,lying. That is not the kind of rep you want for NETC I would think.

Let me make it clear that by no means am I saying that there is no cause to be on alert when a higher reading out of the "norm" for an area, especially a steady abnormally high reading over several hours and more so, over days, there absolutely is.

So there, I have had my say and I hope to learn more about what this site has to offer, what information is at hand to use in checking and balancing high readings. I truly hope that more people will start educating themselves, not just run around screaming about high readings. If this issue is to get better attention from the media or other high profile news/publications, I think a certain level of transparency is needed regarding this issue, especially when the average citizen is a newbie to how radiation readings other than high-low work.

I look forward to hearing you're and others feelings on this,

KittehKitteh


Mon Jun 02, 2014 12:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 11:42 pm
Posts: 4
Location: USA
Oh and before I forget. I saw in another thread that you said that on EPA site, range 5 was for Cesium 137. I was under the impression it was 3-5. Do you have any EPA docs that cover the ranges?


Mon Jun 02, 2014 1:21 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:28 pm
Posts: 42
I found this post that appears to do a good job explaining the EPA gamma energy ranges. I am by no means an expert, so this is all new to me.

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/20 ... 00kev.html


Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 11:42 pm
Posts: 4
Location: USA
ammdb wrote:
I found this post that appears to do a good job explaining the EPA gamma energy ranges. I am by no means an expert, so this is all new to me.

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/20 ... 00kev.html


Hey hi,

Thanks for the link, reading it now. I knew I had these saved somewhere for reference. You gotta check this one out, it is awesome. It gives you Gamma Energy (KeV), Nuclide, Half-Life and Percent Yield per decay.

http://www.csupomona.edu/~pbsiegel/bio4 ... rgies.html\

This is from the EPA
Energy | Gamma Energies
Range | (keV)
Number |
---------+---------------------
1 | Reserved by
| software for
| instrument
| stabilization
---------+---------------------
2 | 100-200
---------+---------------------
3 | 200-400
---------+---------------------
4 | 400-600
---------+---------------------
5 | 600-800
---------+---------------------
6 | 800-1000
---------+---------------------
7 | 1000-1400
---------+---------------------
8 | 1400-1800
---------+---------------------
9 | 1800-2200
---------+---------------------
10 | 2200-2800

And this neat little gadget from IAEA. Click on stuff its fun lol

https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharth ... tHTML.html


Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:28 pm
Posts: 42
Thanks for the links. I have to admit the IAEA gadget is way over my head.

As for your concern about people not understating the high readings on this site and jumping to the wrong conclusion I have to agree. People see cpm as a unit of measure like inches, and freak out when seeing cpm readings in the hundreds compared to an average off the shelf radiation detector that has background readings in the single or double digits. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, cpm is a relative number with many variables that affect it, and without knowing how the unit is calibrated, material being measured, and distance to the source, it doesn't give any information about the actual dose rate.

From what I've read about the EPA radiation monitoring sites, they pump air through a filter which traps isotopes in close proximity to the detector. Do to the inverse square law, it makes sense that these cpm readings are going to be way higher than without the filter. EPA sites are also using some sort of scintillation detector which is more sensitive and can measure all the different energies. Unfortunately, most people looking at the map and see average cpm readings in the hundreds near where they live, think that everyone is getting blasted with radiation, and don't know that they clicked on an EPA site showing normal background levels.


Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:01 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:40 pm
Posts: 2879
Location: Illinois
ammdb wrote:
Thanks for the links. I have to admit the IAEA gadget is way over my head.

As for your concern about people not understating the high readings on this site and jumping to the wrong conclusion I have to agree. People see cpm as a unit of measure like inches, and freak out when seeing cpm readings in the hundreds compared to an average off the shelf radiation detector that has background readings in the single or double digits. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, cpm is a relative number with many variables that affect it, and without knowing how the unit is calibrated, material being measured, and distance to the source, it doesn't give any information about the actual dose rate.

From what I've read about the EPA radiation monitoring sites, they pump air through a filter which traps isotopes in close proximity to the detector. Do to the inverse square law, it makes sense that these cpm readings are going to be way higher than without the filter. EPA sites are also using some sort of scintillation detector which is more sensitive and can measure all the different energies. Unfortunately, most people looking at the map and see average cpm readings in the hundreds near where they live, think that everyone is getting blasted with radiation, and don't know that they clicked on an EPA site showing normal background levels.


I agree, although people need to compare previous readings/graph of any station to determine if the readings are normal or not.

_________________
MY OUTSIDE RADIATION MONITORING STATION:
South Beloit, Illinois - GMC200 Outside on HEPA air purifier, ground level, facing West.
http://netc.com/chart/view.php?n=1%3AEB5A139C


Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:35 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 6 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.